IT'S ABOUT ECONOMIC INEQUALITY, STUPID: "Are you a have or a have-not? Because if you're a have-not, you've probably had it... whereas if you're a have, you've got it and are going to give it up sometime in the near future." -- The Clash

You can be a have or a have-not, but you don't have to be especially prescient to see where America's future is headed if we don't do something about our now early-1900's-robber-baron levels of income inequality, where upper-level corporate executives typically make hundreds of times what their rank-and-file workers do. Our middle class is rapidly disappearing while the rich enjoy undreamed-of lifestyles (even by the standards of the rich) at the expense of their countrymen.

But the desperation of oligarchs like the Koch brothers, Diane Hendricks, John Menard, Sheldon Adelson and their peers, who have steered our nation toward its ruin in order to make themselves obscenely wealthier, is beginning to show.

Rich Republicans successfully hijacked the Tea Party movement by convincing working Americans that their real enemy was public employees, not the extremely wealthy class that shipped their jobs overseas and steadily whittled their employment benefits down to nothing (the poster boys for this movement are, interestingly, both from Wisconsin: Scatt Wanker and Lyin' Paul Ryan). That bought the oligarchs another few years while angry working Americans started beating up on state employees, county health nurses, and (especially) schoolteachers... while the GOP continued to rob everyone but the rich and give all the money to (you guessed it) the oligarchs.

The GOP even managed, brilliantly, to build a reinforced shield around their treasonous employers: Instead of robber barons, they became "Job Creators"! Never mind that the majority of the jobs these folks created were either minimum-wage-slave toil or in some third-world nation--it was a great tag line, and just like the government-employee heist, working America fell for it. Lyin' Ryan used to get the masses pretty worked up with his "makers" (oligarchs) vs. "takers" (government workers, anyone on any type of public assistance) shtick.

But that couldn't go on forever. Eventually, even the least politically astute working American was going to start to smell a rat, especially as their lot in life continued to decline (this was especially true for the working class in GOP-ruled hellholes like Wisconsin, Kansas, and Indiana). It was only a matter of time before the forbidden question got asked: Hey, what the hell is going on here?

I have been saying this just about forever, and as a few voices in the media and the blogosphere begin to pick up my theme, I feel vindicated. Basically, the stunning success of both men--both of whom appeared completely out of left field--is largely due to their willingness to bring income inequality front and center, something which the mainstream candidates (Hillary helped her husband Bill, our 42nd President, restructure American banking law in favor of Wall Street--which was like handing the keys of an Indy car to a drunken high schooler--and ram NAFTA through Congress; Cruz/Rubio/Bush/Wanker is a generic sock puppet working only for the oligarchs) have "cleverly" steered away from.

But that ship may have sailed.

We are currently watching the extraordinarily painful (and in many ways, amusing) efforts of the GOP to put out the fire of the Trump rebellion. I suppose they will have their way in the end; after all, right here in Wisconsin we have seen how far the Rethuglicans will go (fixing voting machines, passing voter-suppression laws, changing any law that doesn't suit them) to please their corporate masters. Problem at the end of the day is that they're still stuck with Ted Cruz, a slimy snake-oil salesman hated by almost everyone who knows him, who makes up for being a little more cerebral than Scatt Wanker by being even less charming--and that is one hell of an "accomplishment".

And on the Democratic side? Everyone, everyone knows that Hillary is in bed with Wall Street. Oh yeah, she talks a great game about how much she cares about working Americans. So did her husband, who did much more to cripple blue-collar America than George W. Bush ever dreamed of (actually, Dubya seemed to genuinely like blue-collar people--I know, I've watched him mix and mingle with them).

These are the facts as I understand them: If Hillary Clinton--or, certainly, Ted Cruz--are elected President, we're just going to get more of the same old oligarchy. Nothing is going to change for the working man or woman, not one little thing--except that our lives are going to get even worse. The oligarchy knows this; if Cruz looks to be a loser (which is almost certain) in the general election, watch them go all hot and heavy for Hillary. Seriously. I stand on these words. You read it here first.

Because they will not, cannot, accept a change in the status quo--a change that would have working Americans have a real voice at the bargaining table. What do you think is behind Scatt Wanker and his systematic destruction of both public-sector and private-sector unions? It's all about the oligarchs setting the prevailing wage--and that, friends, is the minimum wage. Which is not going to be $15 per hour, so get over that little notion (here, the oligarchs have helped to insure that our minimum wage will not rise above $7.25 per hour. Try feeding yourself--let alone anyone else--on that).

I have some problems with Trump. I think he should be more accommodating of the Mexican illegals and at least offer them a path to citizenship. I don't think all Muslims are bad people (I have met a few who aren't, including the guy in my 92-year-old father's Veterans home). And I don't like the way he sneers at women.

But how is Trump more manifestly evil than people working full-time for the oligarchs? Answer: He's not. I think he genuinely cares about America, and that means he cares about the men and women who go out and do a hard day's work every day and don't expect a whole hell of a lot in return. At least he's listening to us--and in return, I'm listening to him.

But Sanders is really my man. As much as I might like to go after the uber-rich with a pitchfork and take back the money they stole from me and from so many millions of my fellow Americans, I know this is not what's best for the country. We want to avoid another French Revolution or Russian Revolution. The only way to avoid that now is to put either Trump or Sanders into the White House. Another four years of the status quo is a virtual guarantee that the pitchforks are going to come out, and the rest of us are going to take back what's rightfully ours. And it won't be pretty.

Comments

I had been wondering about your take on the election. Unfortunately, I can't share your enthusiasm for Trump or Bernie. Trump is easy: he has little filter and decided a while back to take on the political mantle of George Wallace, blending a certain level of populism with dog-whistle racism. A few weeks back, I recently re-read Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972" (a pithy read for this year in particular). One(of the many)things that struck me was that when HST was speaking with supporters at a Wallace rally (in Wisconsin - imagine that!) was they said almost word for word what Trump's supporters say about him. I don't see a billionaire who has shown little care for any kind of economic justice as anyone who'll stick up for the average worker. Especially since Trump has a history of stiffing his subcontractors (through bankruptcy declarations). He's PT Barnum.

Bernie is more problematic, mostly because I like what he says and want to like the guy. Part of my issue is his supporters: remember liberals (think 70s and 80s particularly) who you just wanted to punch when they opened their mouths? They're back, and by and large are supporting Bernie. And enthusiastically assenting to "9/11 was an inside job", and comparing Hillary to Nixon (she's a sellout, but not patently evil). I suspect that over 90% of the folks who back BDS are in for Bernie.

There is also a nagging voice that says Bernie in office could be another Jimmy Carter: what I mean by that is that Carter came to Washington with his "Georgia mafia" which didn't care to understand how things actually get done in Washington, and accomplished very little by pissing off potential allies. Bernie has very little to show for his time in the Senate, doesn't put in the time to campaign for people "down the ticket", and if you think today's Republican party had trouble working with Obama, how much do you expect they'll work with a self-avowed Socialist?

Moderate Dem--most of what I write here may very well be based on wishful thinking. When I lived in NYC in the Eighties, I remember Trump not for any racism (I don't recall him saying anything remotely racist back then) but for things like getting the Wollman Rink functioning again with his own funds. And as to Bernie, I really don't care much about his pie-in-the-sky programs, which will probably never get past a hostile Congress. I do care about the fact that he's brought income inequality front and center, and that's important. A big swath of the American electorate is just plain dumb--how much in the way of smarts does it require to realize that the Tea Party element (Cruz, Walker et al.) exists only to funnel money from the poor to the very, very rich? Look at Wisconsin--the worst roads in the nation, gutted public schools, and funds diverted to the wealthy through huge tax cuts causing a $2.6 billion deficit. And all Walker has to do is repeat his talking point (note I said "point," not "points") which is that UNION THUGS are STEALING MONEY FROM YOU and THEY HAVE THINGS THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN DREAM OF HAVING. Never mind that there are basically no functioning unions in the state (and that now includes private-sector unions, despite Walker's pledge in 2011 to "partner" with them). Walker keeps trotting out this Trojan horse, and the voters keep falling for it.

For the rest of us, who see that Wall Street and oligarchs like the Koch brothers are actually calling all the shots for the Tea Party (and for Hillary, should she get the nomination), we have to hope for a change in the status quo. Like I wrote above, I don't want to see a violent revolution in this country. I want us to simply address what's wrong and move on.